of God and men therefore not within the limits of this text and therefore to be resisted and the Person punishable 4. Howsoever the lawfull power of Princes be of God yet the tyranny it self and abuse of this power is of Satan and therefore though the power it self which is good and profitable be to be honored and continued yet the tyrant justly may be condemned to death as not within the compasse of this text 13. Obje And thus much for the first sort of Objections we come now to the rest Kings some say are in dignity and power above tho people their persons sacred not criminal or obnoxious to any tribunal but that of God King Theodor. in Cassidore speaking of himself Cassi var. l. 6 var. 4. hac sola ratione discreti quod alteri subdi non possimus qui Judices non habemus In this respect we are distinguished from others that we cannot be subject to another who have no Judges over us Impune quidvis facere id est Regem esse I have read in Plutarch that Alexander Magnus published he was the son of Jupiter Hammon yet when he saw the humor running down from his wounds was constrained to say this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blood of man not of God and smelling the stench of his own flesh asked his flatterers if the gods yeelded such a stench Princes specially of late have deem'd themselves to be None-such and altogether unlike other men but when they shall see themselves as prisoners stand at the bar and justice don upon them they will think otherwise of their condition I know what the common saying is Quidquid delirant Reges plectuntur Achivi What fault soever Kings commit The subject must be hang'd for it A practice against Scripture reason and conscience It is no Law grounded upon any divine principle That the King doth no wrong only his wicked Councellers and bad instruments must be punished but he not the Lord saith the soul that sinneth it shall dy and in all ages hath punished the author of sin and persons commanding such and such wickednesse more severely and extreamly then the agent who acted by the others warrant commission and authority We see dayly the mother punished for her whordom yet the bastard spared but that the bastard should suffer and the mother escape it is such a thing as I think was never heard of Now touching the objection I answer 1. Simply absolutely the people are above and more excellent then the King and the King in dignity inferior to the people and the whole Kingdom and this I prove 2 Sam. 19.9 Psa 78.70.71 1 Sa. 10,1 Ro. 13.4 1. Because he is the mean ordained for the people as for the end that he may save them a publick shepheard to feed them the captain and leader of the Lords inheritance to defend them the Minister of God for their good 2. The pilot is lesse then the whole passengers the General lesse then the whole Army the physitian lesse then all the living men whose health he careth for the Master or Teacher lesse then all the Schollers because the part is lesse then the whole The King is but a part or member of the Kingdom 3. Those who are given of God as gifts for the preservation of the people to be nursing-Fathers to them those must be of lesse worth before God then those to whom they are given for the gift as a gift is lesse then the party on whom the gift is bestowed But the King is a gift for the good and welfare of the people as is manifest Esa 1.26 4. People though mortal in the individuals yet in the species cannot dye Ecc. 1.4 but the King as King may and doth die and therefore more excellent then that which is accidental temporary and mortal 5. The people are before the King and may be without the King and therefore must be of more worth then that which is posterior and cannot be a King without them 2. The people in power are superior to the King and that upon these reasons 1. Because every efficient and constituent cause is more excellent then the effect every mean is inferior in power to the end But the people are the efficient cause the King is the effect Isa 3.7 the people are the end both intended of God to save the people to be a healer and physitian to them 2. Common reason Law and experience manifests that the whole or greatest part in all politick or natural bodies is of greater power and jurisdiction then any one particular member Thus in all corporations the Court of Aldermen and Common-Councel is of greater power then the Major alone though the chief officer so the whole Bench then the Lord chief Justice and the whole Councel then the President And it is Aristotle's expresse determination Pol lib. 1 C. 2. l. 3. c. 8. Majorum rerum potest as jure populo tribuitur The King as we sayd just now is but a part or member though I grant a very noble and eminent member of the Common-wealth 3. The Soveraign Power to make Laws and so a power eminent in their states representative to govern themselves is in the people Ergo 4. Those who can limit power and bind royal power in elected Kings they in power are superior to Kings Peter speaking of Kings and their Supremacy cals them a creature or humane ordinance because it took its originall and rise from men and can be bound limitted or restrained as they see occasion 1 Pe 2.13 Coverrunias a great Lawyer saith Cover Tom. 2. pra quest c. 1. n. 2. 3. That all civil power is penes remp in the hands of the Common-wealth and it is a received principle That Soveraign Power eminently fontaliter originally and radically is in the people But it is objected The people have made over their right and whole power to the King all is freely given up into his hands and so may not retract or take back what they have once given Answ 1. It is a thing neither probable nor credible that any free people when they voluntarily incorporated themselves into Kingdoms and of their own accord set up an elective King over them that there was such a stupidity and madnesse in them as absolutely to make away their whole power to the King and his heirs for ever and to give him an entire full and incontroulable Supremacy over them and so to make the Creature superior to the Creator the derivative greater then the primative the servant more potent than themselves and so of free-men to make themselves slaves and for their more safety to be more enslav'd 2. People cannot by the Law of nature resign up their soveraign and popular power authority and right into the hand of a King for neither God nor natures Law hath given them any such power 3. He who constituteth himself a slave is supposed to
law of absolute Majesty c. It is said of Paracelsus that the diet he prescribed his patients was to eat what and how often they thought fitting themselves Royallists and Court-flatterers do allow such an absolute prerogative to Kings that if they would make use of their plenitude and unlimitted power there is no wickednesse but they may do viz. violently ravish matrons deflour virgins unnaturally abuse youth cut all their Subjects throats fire their houses sack their Cities subvert their Liberties and as Bellarmin puts the case of the Popes absolute irresistible authority send millions of souls to hel yet no man under pain of damnation may or ought demand of him Domine cur ita facis Sir what do you such a slavery those vermins have sought to bring all Subjects into But to answer 1. The scope and drift of the place is thus Samuel being displeased with the people because they would reject Gods government who was then their King having in his own hand the regal rights and did substitute under him Judges whom he extraordinarily called qualified and inspired them with his spirit shews them the manner of the King ver 9.11 not what they should be and ought to do in right but what they use to be and do in fact and how commonly they demean themselves in Government contrary to Gods Law Deut. 17.15 and the Lawes of the Kingdom and that he speaks not here of the Law or power of a lawfull King but of Saul's tyrannicall usurpation is evident thus 1. The Hebrew word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which as our English rendreth is the manner and so the word usually signifies a 2 K ng 17.26 Gen. 40 13. Exod 21,19 1 Sam 27,11 a custome or manner and as a custom so a wicked b 1 Sam 2,13 1 Kings 18,28 custome Peter Martyr on the place saith He meaneth here of an usurped Law The custome and manner of doing say Junius and Tremellius Clemens Alexandrinus on the place saith non humanum pollicetur Dominum sed insolentem daturum minatur tyrannum he promiseth not a humane Prince but threatneth to give them an insolent tyrant So saith Beda Lyra expoundeth it Tyranny so Cajetanus And Serrarius he speaketh not here quid Reges jure possint sed quid audeant what they may do by right and Law but what they wil be bold to do and so speaketh Thomas Aquinas Osiander Pelican Borhaius Willet and our last large Annotations take it that Samuel setteth not down the office of a King and what he ought to be but what manner of Kings they should have such as would decline to tyranny be tyrants not Kings rule by will not by Law 2. He speaketh of such a power as is answerable to the acts here spoken of but the acts here spoken of are acts of meer tyranny As 1. to make slaves of their sons ver 11. was an act of Tyranny 2. To take their fields and vineyards and oliveyards from them ver 14. was no better then Ahabs cruelty towards Naboth 3. To put the people of God to bondage ver 15 16. was to deal with them as the Tyrant Pharaoh did 4. He speaketh of such a Law the execution whereof should make them cry out to the Lord because of their King ver 18. but the execution of the just Law of the King Deut. 17. is a blessing not a crosse or curse 3. It is clear that God by his Prophet disswades them from their purpose of seeking a King by fortelling the evil of punishment that they should suffer under a tyrant for 1. Samuel is to protest against their unlawfull course v. 9. 2. He is to lay before them the tyranny and oppression of their King which cruelty Saul exercised in his time as the history of his life sheweth But he speaketh not one word of these necessary and comfortable acts of favour that a just King by his good Government was to do for his people Deut. 17. 3. It is set down ver 19. how in effectual Samuels exhortation was now how could it be said they refused to hear the voyce of Samuel if he had not dehorted them from a King 2. Touching these words and ye shall cry out in that day because of your King 1. Here is not one word of any lawfull remedy for this is not alwayes understood of praying to God by reason of oppression as by many a Is 15.4 Ha. 2.11 Deut. 22.24 Scriptures doth appear 2. Though it were the Prophets meaning they cryed unto the Lord yet it is not the crying of a people truly humbled and in faith speaking to God in their b Zec. 7.12 Psal 18.41 troubles and therefore such prayer as God heareth not 3. It is a rule in Logick and Divinity Ex particulari non valet argumentum negative from one particular place a negative argument is not good To apprehend imprison and put a tyrant to death is not written in this particular place therefore it is not written at al in other places of Scripture But 4. The text sayes not They shall only cry out as if no other course were to be used against a tyrant but crying out which shews a meer fallacy and absurdity in what they speak Because a man must pray for Kings and Rulers Ergo there is no tribute or obedience due to them Again Men must pray for their daily bread and sick persons seek to God for health Ergo they must only pray and not labor for it they must take no phisick but only pray 3. If the Prophets words be rightly understood he is so far from affirming that the power of a King is absolute and uncontroulable as on the contrary he closely admonisheth the people that they should look to him as to restrain and bridle his licentious liberty and keep him within the due limits of law and reason and seeing he is apt to degenerate into a tyrant and cruelly to oppresse the subjects to be therefore prudent and carefull seasonably to prevent so great a mischief and danger Lastly In the whole description here of a tyrant there is not one word against our Conclusion For 1. The peoples power whose Representatives the Ordines Regni the States of the Kingdom are is above the King Polib his l. 6 Such were the Ephori amongst the Lacedemonians the Senate amongst the Romans The Forum Superbiense amongst the Arragonians The Electors of the Emperors the Parliaments in England Scotland France and Spain The Fathers of Families and Princes of Tribes amongst the Jews And for this Soveraign and Supream power of Estates as above Kings I appeal to Jurists and to approved Authors Argu. L. aliud 160. sect 1. de Jur. Reg. l. 22. Mortuo de fidei l. 11.14 ad Mum. l. 3.14 Cornelius Bertramo c. 12. Junius Brutus Vindic. cont Tyran sect 2. Sigonius de Rep. Judaeor l. 6. c. 7. Author Libelli de Jur. Magist in Subd q. 6.
Althus Pol. c. 18. Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 20. Pareus in Rom. 13. Peter Mart. in lib. Judic c. 3. Joan Marianus de Rege lib. 1. c. 7. Marius Salamonius Lib. 1. de Principatu Hottaman de jure Antiq. Reg. Gallica l. 1. c. 22. Danaeus Polit. Christ l. 3. c. 6. Buchanan de Jure Regni apud Scotos 2. The King is under Law and punishable by Law as we shal manifest more fully hereafter It is the Law Imp l. 4 dignavox C de leg tit Quod quisque Juris in alium statuit eodem et ipse utatur What a man of right enacteth for another the same he himself should do If otherwise proving a Tyrant he may saith Bartol In tractat de Tyran in tract de re Ci. Jun. Bru vind con tyr l 3. be justly deposed by his superiour or according to the Julian law by force of the whol Common-wealth most deservedly punished I will end this point with the words of Junius Brutus A Tyrant saith he is more outragiously wicked than any thief high-way-robber murderer or sacrilegious person and therefore deserves a far greater heavier and severer punishment 7 obiect I find some to frame their objection thus None of the Prophets in the old Testament reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for their grosse Idolatry cruelty and oppression did call upon the great Councel of State to convent censure put their Kings to death upon any of these grounds therefore to put them to death is unlawful Answ 1. It is a great Non-consequence Aristoteles aut Plato hoc non dixerunt hoc Ergo ita se non habet Fra Burâ—… Instit Lâ— l. 1. c. 18. This duty is not practised by any example out of the Prophets in Gods word Ergo It is no duty Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith shew a practice when a husband stoned his wife because she enticed him to follow strange gods Yet it is commanded Deut. 13.6 when a man lying with a beast was put to death Yet it is a law Exod. 22.19 so many other laws the practice of which we find not in Scripture But 2. Seeing none of the Prophets did forbid the thing or dehorted the people from proceeding this way therefore it was lawful and the people freely might have done it if they had been zealous of the law and had a heart to it And to make this cleer take notice what the Law saith Levit. 19.35,36 Deut. 25,13 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement in meteyard in weight or in measure just ballances just weights c. Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights a great and a small These ordinances taught men justice Ye shall not respect persons in judgment ye shall not be afraid of the face of man deu 1.17 so that whosoever was a murderer an adulterer a witch a Sodomite c. he was to be put to death And questionless had the Lord intended that some namely Kings howbeit murderers adulterers witches should be exempted from the punishment of such laws as being no power or Court on earth to reach them it would have been some where set down And therefore whereas it is objected that the Prophets speak no where of putting their Idolaters wicked Kings to death the truth is it needed not neither was there any reason for it for it was never questioned in the Prophets times whether Kings might be put to death if they did such things as by the law was death 3. Not only is it evident by the History of the Kings and Chronicles in sundry places 2 Kin. 21.11.12 23.26 24.3 Jer. 15.1,2,3.4 that God did punish the people for the wickedness of their Kings but likewise the Prophets have threatned so much the which thing surely God in justice would not have done neither the Prophets so have spoken had not the people power to have removed them and put them to death for their capital crimes according to the Law 4. When the Prophets exhorted the People to repent and to execute justice and judgment and to deliver him that was spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor Jer 7.5 21.12 22,3 Here they did call upon the great Councel of State to punish their tyrannous murderous and idolatrous Kings with death according to the law for otherwise how could the people truly repent or have answered what the Prophets exhorted them unto in point of justice 5. That tyrannous Princes not only by command of Gods Prophets but of God himself and by his special approbation have been put to death by their subjects 't is apparent in Scripture thus Nadab by Baasha Elah by Zimry Jehu by Gods own appointment puts to death Joram and Ahaziah Kings of Israel and Judah And say that it was extraordinary to Jehu that he should kill Joram yet there was an expresse law for it that he that stirreth up others to idolatry should die the death Deut. 13.6 And mark what Mr. Rutherfurd writes in this very point Preem Elect qu 34. p. 364 THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OF KING or Father in the Law For to except Father or mother in Gods matters is expresly against the zeal of God Deut. 33.9 8 obiect That passage in Psal 51.4 is much taken hold of where King David confessing his sin of adultery and murder to God useth this expression against thee thee only have I sinned and don this evill in thy sight Sac. Mai. p. 148. de author prin c. 4. num 5. p. 73 Hence Maxwell Arnisaeus and others conclude That the King is above all Law and all earthly Tribunals accountable to none for his actions but to God and that there was not any on earth who might punish David I have somewhere read how Calisthenes Lucullus servant gave his Master poyson not of any evill intent but supposing the poyson had power to make his Master love him the more but it put him out of his wits and kill'd him Fawning Sycophants and Court-flatterers have usually thus served Kings and Princes in hope of more love and greater preferment from them have powerd into them the venemous doctrine of absolute Monarchs Arbitrary power to be responsable to none but God only for what they do by which means they have grown mad Tyrants and afterwards cut off by some visible and sensible stroke of justice But to the objection I answer 1. It is most certain that David by his adultery and murder being sins against the second table did sin not only against God but against Vriah his wife children and kindred and against his own soul And this must needs be so for otherwise 1. The King because a King is free not only from all punishing Laws of men but from the duties of the second Table simply and so a King cannot be under the best and largest half of the law Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self 2. He shall not need to say forgive
doth not only concern Christians but all the people under these Emperours and howbeit Religion was persecuted the peoples Liberty lost and the Senate then enslaved by Edict and Laws inforced on them by Nero and other Emperors yet notwithstanding the Apostle forbids to resist That I may give a satisfactorie answer to this Objection I desire the Reader to consider the occasion of the Apostles words which I take to be thus The Roman Magistrates being Infidels people newly converted to Christian Religion might think themselves exempted from any subjection or obedience unto them by reason of Gospel-liberty and further that it was not lawful for them to make use of such Magistrates in any civil cause what wrong soever they suffered To refute which error the Apostle informs them that howbeit the Magistrates were unbeleeving Gentiles yet their authority and power was from God Himself and in that regard their profession of Christianity did rather obleige them then exempt them from subjection and they were Gods Ministers appointed by him to punish offenders and to take vengeance on them Now bring this into an argument because Religion exempts not subjects from due obedience to lawful pagan Magistrates and people oppressed may seek redresse of their grievances therefore Tyrants may not be legally arraigned censured and put to death by the highest and supremest Court of the Kingdom 2. If the Apostles words be observed even word for word there is not any thing in them against the arraignment of a tyrant For 1. The Higher Powers must be submitted to and why Because they are ordained of God and are Gods ordinances vers 1 2. That is so far as they govern according to reason and just laws preserve their Peoples liberties persons and estates But where is it said When they prove traitors to the Kingdom and are the Devil's Agents they may not be severely punished for it 2. Because those who resist lawful authority and just commands receive to themselves condemnation is not this a non sequitur that the Parliament whose jurisdiction and power is above the King may not call him to an account for tyranny and mis-government 3. Rulers must be obeyed Because they are not a terror to good works but to evil verse 3. is not this a good consequence when they are profest enemies to all good works and do evil and continually evil with both hands that same power which hath set them up cannot take them down again 4. Obey him saith the Apostle why because he is the minister of God to thee for good v. 4. But can this be applied to a tyrant who hath destroy'd the people in body goods doth it not rather plainly imply that those who are the devils ministers to us for evil rather then Gods for good by a lawful power above them should be thrust out of their place 5. It is said ver 5. But if thou dost that which is evil be afrayd for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil Can any Roialist find any thing here which is not spoken in reference only to faithfull Magistrates in the execution of justice upon malefactors wherein they must not be resisted much lesse punished for well doing And by the rules of contraries a Tyrant that makes war upon his people to ruin spoyl and enslave them protecteth all wicked men gives liberty to all manner of unrighteousnesse bears the sword not only in vain in reference to the publick good but draws it forth only upon those that are good for such cruelty oppression and impiety may lawfully be cut off 3. The text doth include all higher powers not to be restrain'd only to Kings and Emperors but comprehends all kind of civil Rulers Augustin Irenaeus Chrysostom Hierom expound it of Masters Magistrates So doe Calvin Beza Pareus Piscator Rollor Marlorat So do Popish writers Aquinas Lyra Hugo Cardinal Carthus Pierius Toletus Cornel. a Lapide Salmeron Estitius expound the place Hence it must follow that no resistance of the higher powers is here prohibited but only in the due and legall execution of their offices For no man will deny but inferior lawfull officers illegally endeavoring to subvert Liberties Laws and unrighteously governing the people may be imprisoned arraigned and condemned for their misdemeanor And this granted which cannot be denyed our conclusion is fully proved and thus I make it appear Whosoever is a murderer or a traytor to the State may lawfully be put to death by the civil power that is above him and that by vertue of this text Rom. 13.1,2,3 But the King of England is under a civil power and jurisdiction to wit the Soveraign power of the Parliament Ergo If a murderer or traitor to the State may lawfully be put to death Though there be no Tribunall saith Mr. Rutherfurd formally regall and Kingly above the King yet there is a Tribunal vertual eminently above him in the case of tyranny for the States and Princes are above him 4. That the Romane Emperor when Paul wrote was the Supream and highest power in the Romane State is most untrue Iustinian indeed speaks somewhat that way Dig. l 2. Tit 2. p 146. that the Emperor was absolute but he is partial in this case Bodin proveth Bodin de Rep l 2 c. 5. pag. 221. That the Romane Emperors were but princes of the Common-wealth and that the Soveraignty remained still in the Senate and people Livius Florus Tacitus say the like and to put it out of all doubt the case of Nero that wicked Emperor is proof sufficient whom the Senate judicially condemned and as a publick enemy to the State adjudged him to have his head fastned to a fork and so to be publickly whipt to death and then to be precipitated from a rock upon which sentence he being sought for and forsaken of al to avoyd the execution therof murdered himself with a poinyard 5. As for tyrants and wicked oppressing Magistrates they are not within the intendment of this text neither is there any thing here spoken to prohibit the people from censuring and punishing of them for 1. That which is not the Ordinance of God but rather of the devil and the meer sin and enormity of the Governor himself not of the Government is not within the compasse of this text 2. That which is no point of the Magistrates lawfull power ordained of God but diametrally repugnant to it as tyranny oppression violence c. is not within the verge or compasse of this text 3. All Powers intended in the text are not only ordained of God but also circumscribed and bounded with certain rules of Law justice and honesty within which they must contain themselves and if they passe beyond those limits they are none of Gods Ordinance Now the tyranny and oppression of Kings and Rulers are meer exorbitances arbitrary illegall actions exceeding the bound of justice and honesty prescribed by the Law
be compelled to that unnatural fact of alienation of that liberty which he received of God from the womb by violence constraint or extream necessity and so is inferiour to all free-men but the people do not make themselves slaves when they constitute a King over them 4. If the people give all power away 1. What power is then left them to make a new King when this man dies 2. If the King turn distracted or like Nebuchadnezer his reason be taken from him what then or if he turn Tyrant and destroy his subjects with the sword In a word If the King be absent and taken captive the people having given all their power away there can be nothing done in such and many the like cases for their own safety 5. He who sweareth to the people to be regulated by law and taketh the Crown Covenant-wise and so as the people would refuse to make him their King if either he should refuse to swear or if they knew certainly that he would break his oath he had never the whole power of the people resigned up unto him 6. Though the people should give away their power and swear though the King should kill them all they would not resist nor defend their own lives though he should commit the vilest wickednesse that was ever heard of yet they would not question him for it this should not obliege the conscience for it should be intrinsecally sinfull and an oath directly against the law of God 7. These are known rules in law nature and reason Nemo plus iurus ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet No man can give to another of right more than that which he hath Again Non debet actori licere quod reo non permittitur so Alterius circumventio alii non praebet actionem So likewise Non debet alteri per alterum iniqua conditio inferri If the father have resigned his whole right of liberty in the hand of the King yet could he not take in his posterity with him neither obliege them in point of equity and conscience to confirm and observe what against the law of nature he had done but his children afterwards might lawfully yea and ought to stand fast in the liberty which the law of God nature and nations had made them free and not be entangled in the slavish yoke and bondage of their father Nullus videtur dolo facere qui suo jure utitur I shall here conclude this point with a few observations 1. Seeing the servant is no better than his Lord Kings may as lawfully be punished for their crimes as other men because in dignity and power they are inferior to the people they are the Ministers and Servants of the Common-wealth not Masters of the State which title good Kings did never scorn nay evil Princes have affected that name and for some ages none of the Roman Emperours unless those who were most manifest wicked and notorious professed tyrants as Caligula Nero Domitian would be called Lords 2. If the King as King be the peoples Creature they his Creator then by the same power they may un-un-king him For eodem modo quid constituitur dissolvitur in what manner a thing is constituted it may be dissolved Again Omnia quae jure contrahuntur contrario jure pereunt 3. Whosoever grants that the King in power is inferior to the people he must necessarily grant that by this power duly and rightly administred a King for treason and murder may lawfully be put to death for it is absurd and irrational to say there may be a power and the due executing of it unlawful 4. If our forefathers in times past have given away all their power and right to Kings and have sworn not to punish them for tyranny and misgovernment it concerns us not neither are we tied to such engagements oaths promises which they have made but in point of conscience law and reason are free to use our own due power as occasion shall be offered 13 obiect As the King is above the people in dignity and power so say Royallists he is absolute and hath a prerogative above all law Such a plenitude and fulnesse of power saith Sanches Th. San. Ma. Tom 1. l. 2. dis 15. n. 3. as subject to no necessity Nulliusq publici juris regulis limitatus and bounded with rules of no publick law And so Baldus before him Bald. l 2. n 40. c. de s aqua Vlpian saith Vlpian l. de regib The Prince is loosed from laws Bodin Bodin de Rep. l. 7. cap. 20. Nemo imperat sibi no man commandeth himself Tholosanus saith Ipsius dare non accepere the Prince giveth lawes but receiveth none Donellus distinguisheth betwixt a law and a Royal law proper to the King Don. l. 1. com c. 17 Trentlerus saith Tren vol 1. â—…9 8. The Prince is freed from laws and that he obeyeth laws de honestate non de necessitate upon honestie not of necessity And with him Soto Gregorius de valentia and other School-men subject the king to the directive power of the law and liberate him of the coactive power of the law It is reported of one Licas and Thrasilius being cured by Physitians of the Phrensie and phantastical conceits grew afterwards very angry with their friends because they left them not alone in their former foolish condition I know there is little thanks to be expected from the Kings of the earth by seeking to remove that State destroying principle which their Court-flatterers have put into them as Absoluteness a prerogative above law not under power of any jurisdiction c. neverthelesse the work being useful and necessary for the publick good it is fit it should be taken in hand That God hath given no absolute and unlimitted power to a King above law is cleerly proved thus 1. He is appointed of God even when he sitteth on the throne to take heed to read on a written copy of Gods Law that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and keep all the words of this Law Deut. 17,18,19 Notwithstanding the greatnesse of the affairs of his Kingly office he must read the Law the more carefully to observe and obey it in every particular for the ordering of his own life and for the government of the people 2. Whatsoever power a King hath he hath it from the people and all the power they gave him is a legal and lawful power to guide themselves in peace and godlinesse and save themselves from uniust violence by the benefit of Rulers and therefore to claim a power above Law or to use a tyrannical power against the people for their hurt and destruction or to be exempted from punishment is not only against the peoples intention in their election but such a power as they never gave him never had never could give for they cannot give what they never had and power to destroy themselves they never had nor
to save any man who should commit such crimes as by the Law of God and nature deserveth death I say such a power the people never had never gave him and so consequently a King hath it not 3. The Law saith Illud possimus quod jure poscimus Again it is no power which is not a lawfull power and therefore if a King murder the innocent and do acts of sinfull iniustice this tyrannicall power is not from God otherwise then by way of permission as a power to sin in devils and men is and therefore such a power is restrainable and punishable by the subiect as being a power I say not from God at all 4. Note the conditions tacite or expresse upon which the Prince receiveth the crown For soedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit vis alteri in alterum a mutual conditional covenant giveth Law and power over one to another I ask then why a subject breaking his covenant with the King by treason or rebellions should be punished for it justly and the King breaking his covenant and oath with the people in degenerating into a tyrant and murdering the innocent should not be punished likewise Specially seeing it is acknowledged That the States of the Kingdom who gave him the crown are above him and they may take away what they gave him as the Law of Nature and God saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi Rutl plea for the people quest 26. pag. 234. l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jur l. ille a quo 13. S. 5. If the King turn a paricide a lyon a waster and a destroyer of the People as a man he is Subject to the coactive Laws of the land if any thing should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by law it must be either because he hath not a superior but God or nemo potest a se ipso cogi but this ground is false and absurd for a politick society as by natures instinct they may appoint a head or heads to themselves so also if their head or heads become ravenous wolves the God of nature hath not left a perfect society and free people remedilesse but they may arraign and punish the head or heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 6. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt two equals yea or superiors and inferiors the one hath some coactive power over the other If the father give his bond to pay the son a thousand pounds as his patrimony though before this ingagement the father was not oblieged but only by the law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yet now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is so oblieged to his son to pay a thousand pound that by the Law of Nations and the civil law the sonne hath now a coactive power by law to compel his father though his superior to pay him so much of his patrimony Even so though it should be granted which I shall never grant that the King stands superior to his Kingdom and States yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom as ours have don he must by that come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum what any man doth promise falleth under debt If the Covenant be politique and civil then the King must come under a civil obligation to perform the covenant and though there be none on earth superior to King and people to compel them both to perform what they have promised yet de jure by the law of nations each may compel the other to mutual performance And this is cleer 1. By the law of Nations if one nation break covenant with another though both be Independant yet hath the wronged Nation power de jure to presse performance and to force the other to keep covenant or punish them for violation 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant described by Solomon Pro. 6.1,3 My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth and art taken with the words of thy mouth The meaning is by a word of promise and covenant the creditor hath coactive power though he be an equal or an inferior to the man who is surety even by law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the debtor that he may force the creditor to pay If then the King giving not granting he were superior to his whole Kingdom come under a covenant to them to preserve their rights lives liberties but contrarywise destroys their persons goods cities by sword plunder and fire by his commissions granted to inhumane malignants and bloody Irish they have power to compel him to give satisfaction 3. The law shall warrant to loose the vassal from his lord when his lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in L. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quoest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Boltol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de Offic. Magist Imperatores Reges esse Primarios vassallos imperii Regni proinde fi feloniam contra Imperium aut Regnum committant feudo privari proinde ut alias vasallos 14 obie I find this to be a main objection That there is no law for subjects to put their Kings to death for any crime It is saith Bodin a great difference to say that a King may be lawfully slain by a strange Prince or by his Subjects It is no commendation or grace given to the law that it should be like the spiders web that catcheth the little flies and lets the greater escape But to answer 1. It is an error and a great mistake to say that the Commons in the house of Parliament or the representative Kingdom are subjects to the King This I utterly deny to wit as they are Judges there to be subjects to the King neither doe they Judicially convent his Person before them censure and iudge him to death quatenus as subiects but thus He being a minister a steward or servant of the people and they representing the whole body of the people doe call him to an account not as Subiects to him but indeed as his lord and master and so have a Soveraign power to iudge him to death if his crimes deserve the same 2 In point of law Bodin gives us the whole cause Ibid. for he confesseth Where the Prince that bears rule is not an absolute Soveraign but the Soveraignty is either in the people or Nobility in such a case saith he there is no doubt but it is lawfull to proceed against a Tyrant in way of justice and to put him to death and gives for it the example of Nero and Maximinius That
the Kings of England have not been absolute Monarchs but the Supreame Soveraignty resided in the people is a thing certainly known and so abundantly proved by other hands as there cannot be any shew of reason brought against it 3. Seeing the King is under law and the representative of the people above the King to proceed in iustice against him hence it will necessarily follow that the King by law may lawfully be put to death for the law saith the highest or supreamest Judge upon earth cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him A. de le l. non ideo minns Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17 And the reason is he is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil And if the judgment be the Lords not mans not the Parliaments as indeed it is not he cannot then draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guilty except the would take upon him to be wiser then God respect persons in judgment and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now sure it is God only univocally and essentially as God is judge and God only and essentially and all men in relation to him are ministers legates deputies servants I say in relation to him equivocally and improperly Judges and meer created and breathing shadows of the power of the King of Kings And look as the Scribe following his own devise and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Judge so the Supream Councel of State and Representative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder Treason and other high misdemeanors would be but forged intruders and bastard Judges and go contrary to Law so far as they gieve not the very sentence of God and are not the very mouth of the Iudge of Heaven and Earth to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself would do if he were sitting on the throne or bench 4. Howsoever there be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free which indeed are not Laws as Prickman proveth D. c. n. 78 but some circumstances belonging to the Laws Nevertheles if a king commit murder adultery theft and be a traitor a waster and destroyer of his people their goods lives Laws Liberties contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant in this case I confidently affirm there is no law that hath reason equity or justice for its bottom and ground against the putting of such a King to death by the great Councel of State as we have formerly shewed above him And the reason is cleer for the people have no power to make a law that the King shall not dy by the hand of Justice what wickednesse soever he should commit 5. I would gladly be informed by any Iurist or Statist If a Tyrant without a title may be killed yea by a private man why a Tyrant that hath lost his right and title to the Crown by the highest Judicature in the Kingdom may not lawfully be put to death Ut L. vim F de Justit jure ubi plene per omnes For the first the law gives it and it is so generally held by Vasquez Barclay and others Vasq l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. cont Monar l. 4 cap. 10 pag. 286. And for the latter observe what Royalists themselues acknowledge Winzetus against Buchan saith of Nero Wintzet adv Buc. p. 275. that he seeking to destroy the Senate and People of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himself excidit jure Regni lost all right to the kingdom And Barclay saith a Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himself of the right to the Crown So Grotius Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their destruction he loseth his kingdom because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A wil or mind to govern and to destroy cannot consist together in one 6 The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is wel warranted by nature and reason for the safety of the whole is to be preferred before a part But here perhaps it will be objected cut off a mans head and the life of the body is taken away so the King being the head destroy him and the whole body of the Common-wealth is dissolved I answer God cutteth off the spirits of Tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortal thing cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth as it is adequate correlate 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed yet the Common-wealth would not leave off to be a body it would be only a casting off of one form of Government for another the worser for the better but the natural body without the head cannot live Lastly Mr. Pryn citing some Law-Books where the King is said to be the only Supream Governor of this Realm hath no Peer in his Kingdom ought not to be under man Soveraign power of Parl l. 1. p 104 105. Thus answereth 1. That the meaning of al these books is the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly distributively as single men but if we take them collectively in Parliament as they are one body and represent the whole kingdom then they are above the King and may yea ought to restrain and question his actions his male-Administrations if there be just cause 2. Bracton explains himself how he is highest and without a Peer to wit in distributing justice that is he is the highest Iusticiar in the Kingdom but as the Law as any in receiving justice And for the Oath of Supremacy it relates to the Popes forraign Princes authority formerly usurped in this Realm and not at all to be referred to Parliaments or their jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority not so much as once thought of by the subscribers of this Oath which had its creation and authority from the Parliament 15. Obje Some say For people to adjudge their King to death is without example either in Scripture or humane history Answ 1. We argue this negatively this is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo. It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo. It is not lawfull It followeth not I read not in all the word of God of a man put to death for lying with a beast for witchcraft for tempting the people to go a whoring and serving a false God yet these things are written and are all divine precepts 2. Physitians say that that Physick which only stirs the humors and doth not carry them away leaves the body worse then it found it so
To the Right Honorable The COMMONS of ENGLAND And His Excellency the LORD FAIRFAX Lord General of all the Forces raised in ENGLAND by authority of Parliament And His General Councel of War IT is well spoken by Philip King of Macedon that the reproaches and injuries of the Athenian Orators should cause him to order his words and deeds so that themselves might be proved lyers Your good beginning promiseth the same to the whole Nation and we have great hopes now that such a further progres will be made in the work of a full Reformation as the righteous shall see it and rejoyce all iniquity shal stop her mouth Psal 107.42 For the mutinous tumult and noise which some men make in the City by reason of their loose tongues and pens to obstruct your good proceedings and to raise a new war and involve the people again in blood it is but a flash and the Lord will suddenly blast it Only it is worth your observing how your enemies in many particulars are like the adversaries of Nehemiah and the honest party with him When Sanballat Tobiah Geshem the Arabian and the rest perceived that all their former Malignant designs took no effect but the building went prosperously forward they drew over to them the Priests by bribery and flattery and by these mens speeches they thought to affright the Governor and bring that to passe which they could not do by other means Neh. 4.1.2,3.11.15 chap. 6.1,2,4,5,9,10,12,13,14 ch 13.28 29. This present conspiracy amongst the Prophets is a bringing up of the rear the last piece of the whole work As we see on a stage severall actors and every one playes his part yet all make but one Tragedy so the rising in Kent Essex Wales the revolting of the Ships the bringing in of the Scots the Personal Treaty and these Pulpit Incendiaries 't is all one plot howsoever acted by several persons and therefore I doubt not but as the Lord hath discovered the treachery of the one so he will the hypocrisie of the other and confound the whole building both first and last Moreover we cannot but take notise in and through what further difficulties and streights the Lord hath held you up and carried you on we are very senceable how some have left you in the work of whom we thought better things did think they would have been more faithfull and reall to their trust the truth and their own principles Aelian reports of Dionysius that he married two wives in one day the one followed him in his wars the other accompanied him only at his return Men are forward enough to come in when the fight is over to have a part and share in the spoil and fruit of the victory but what they deserve is to be considered of and this to be minded Ignavum fucos pecus a praesepibus arcent I have made the more hast to publish this First Part because I perceive not only Royalists and Cavileers accuse you of high injustice against the Person of the King and that the action hath been formerly carried forth meerly by power without Law reason or conscience But also the lawfulnesse of the thing is by some better minded and persons more honest doubted and are not cleerly satisfied therein And for these later I say specially for their sake I have taken in hand not your cause so much as the cause of the whole Nation and have not only given a satisfactory answer to whatsoever may be objected against the act but justified what hath been don by your authority in point of Law and conscience to all rational and indifferent men I confesse it yeelds to the soul but little peace when our actions have no other bottom or foundation but opportunities power advantages successe But when we know it is Gods work and we see it don in Gods way then the present opportunity power and succes is a manifest and infallible witnes that as the Lord owne the work so he will honor the workmen be their mighty protector And this I prove to be your case not that the action was just because you had opportunity and power to do it but being in it self just and you lawfully called thereto the power and opportunity which God gave you did manifest his approving your zeal justice Now the God of peace and the Lord of hosts be ever mightily present with you to counsel direct protect and prosper your endeavors that we may no longer talk of Subjects liberty and right things but know them and enjoy them we and our posterity and this being accomplished he that desires the Publick good resteth Yours to serve JOHN CAN. THE GOLDEN RULE Or Justice Advanced ALCON of Creet as a Dragon was embracing his son shot an arrow into the heart and hurt not the child but the Dragon died immediately Our State-Archers will now shew their skill and art if by Gods blessing on their labor tyranny and oppression may be taken away without prejudice or hurt to the Nation and for the better carrying on of so necessary and good a work I have undertaken to prove that when Princes become Dragons as the Scripture usually stileth great Tyrants Isa 27.1 Ezek 29.3 't is lawful for the supream and Soveraign power of the People to shoot at them and kill them likewise and whatsoever to the contrary is objected either from Scripture Law Reason or inconveniences I have fully answered and refuted 1. Objec First The Rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram is mentioned from which example some conclude that all opposition and resistance is unlawfull of the people against their King Ergo this kind of proceeding much more Answ This objection being impertinent I shall speak the lesse to it 1. Because a faithfull officer in the due execution of his office may not be opposed resisted punished will it follow that the unfaithfull and wicked must be left alone Moses was a lawful Magistrate and Aaron a true Minister of God faithfull and good men both and therefore to be obeyed but Kings becoming perjur'd tyrants are not so neither is there any Allegeance or obedience from the people due to them as we shall hereafter shew But 2. If this example be well considered it will sufficiently serve to justify so much as by me is here asserted and thus I prove it For any man or men causlesly to mutiny against the Supream Power of a Kingdom and most unnaturally and impiously invade mens Lives Liberties and Estates oppose Justice and seek to bring a whole Nation to utter desolation such lawfully may be resisted suppressed yea by the example of Korah c. put to death Now certain it is howsoever Kings ruling according to Law are publick Ministers of State neverthelesse degenerating into Tyrants and acting against Law they are in such a case no more then private men because whatsoever at first was confirmed upon them in respect of Office it did not in any sort make a
change upon their persons neither set them at any distance touching subjection to the Law either active or passive more then they were before their personal estate was the same still as before neither are they exempted from corporall punishment if they break the Law more then any other men 2. objec It is further objected Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Again Ecc. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thoughts and curse not the rich in thy bed-chamber If Kings may not be curs'd much less put to death by their Subjects Answ 1. The first text is not properly meant of Kings but pertains rather to Judges and other sort of Rulers and so the Jew Doctors understand the place 2. Solomon well explains the place Prov. 17.26 It is not good to strike Princes for equity that is evil speaking of Magistrates for well doing is a wicked and vile thing Hier. in hunc ver ◠3. The other text by some is applyed unto Christ the King of his Church But take it literally because Kings may not be curs'd which is prohibited under pain of condemnation will it therefore follow that Kings may be theeves murderers traytors tyrants and commit any wickednesse and not be cal'd to an account by such who are above them and have a lawfull Power in their hands to punish them 4. The place comprehends Rich-men as well as Kings and therefore it may be as well concluded from it that no man if rich may be punished for any crime or fault whatsoever 5. Both these if rightly applyed are altogether for us for whosoever whether King or Prince shall curse and revile the Supream and Soveraign State of the Land and that for well doing as call them Rebels and Traytors and violently seek to destroy them he absolutely violateth this Law Thou shalt not revile the gods It is true there is here no punishment set down for him that should thus rail But seeing as one writes on the place Willet Qu. 57. he that railed on his father and mother was to die for it Exod. 21.17 much more worthy of death was he which should curse the fathers of the Countrey 3. objec I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him What dost thou Ecc. 8.2,3,4 Hence the Royallists argue If the word of a King must stand and his power not to be resisted how can his Subjects lawfully touch his Person Answ 1. To keep the Kings commandment must be understood of things just and lawfull otherwise as the Apostle saith We must obey God rather than man It is well laid down by Philo Philo de vita Mosis Regis officium est jubere quae oportet fieri vetare a quibus abstinere debet caeterum jussie faciendorum interdictio cavendoru m proprie ad Legem pertinet Atque ita consequitur ut Rex animata sit Lex vero sit Rex justissimus The office of a King is to command those things which ought to be don and to forbid those things which ought to be avoyded But the command of things to be don and the forbidding of things not to be don properly belongeth to the Law And so it followeth that a King is a living Law and the Law is a most just King 2. The oath of God here is the oath which is taken in the name of God and whereof God is made a witnesse The meaning is the King is so to be obeyed as that God is not to be disobeyed and that the oath made to the King is so to be kept as that the oath made to God be not broken Hence Tremellius reads it sed pro ratione juramenti Dei but with regard to the oath of God shewing that Subjects are by their Allegeance and Covenant no further obliged to observe the Laws of earthly Princes then are agreeable to Gods commandments 3. Whereas it is said He doth whatsoever pleaseth him this must be understood only of a good King and just cōmands as if it were supplyed with whatsoever pleaseth God not licet si libet as if all were lawfull whatsoever a King should do but the genuine sence of the place is stand not in an evill matter for the King hath power to do whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in evil courses to forgive thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon of him for the same 4. Who may say to him what dost thou that is reprove or censure him for doing justly as Job expounds it Chap. 34 18. and so must the place be understood to wit that no man may presume to question the Kings just actions warranted by the Law of God and men but otherwise Kings may and are to be reprehended as we have sundry examples for it in Elias reproving Ahab Elisha Jehoram Nathan David John Baptist Herod 1 Sam. 13.13 2 King 3.14 Jer. 1◠28. chap. 22.3 Ho. 5.1.2 Yea not only so but to be resisted withstood and opposed in their unrighteous courses Hence Augustine and Ambrose do affirm Augu. in Psal 82. Amb. in Offic. when Herod and Pilate condemned Christ and caused him to be put to death howsoever the people lamented it were sorry for him and sorely bewail'd his death yet were they all punished and why so because when they were able and might have taken him out of the hands of unjust and wicked Magistrates and so preserv'd his life they did it not in this regard they wrapt themselvs in the same guilt of blood and became murderers of him But lastly This text intends only private men not a Parliament the supreamest Judicatory and Soveraign power in the Kingdom for in this High Court the Kings Person is no other than another subject I say it again to this Court He personally stands as a single man to be questioned censured punished as the Crime and Cause shall be And in truth here lies the stone at which many have stumbled much like to that long controversie between us and the Church of Rome about Petros and Petra Peter and the Rock We distinguish them taking the person of Peter to be one thing his faith or Christ another Whereas the Papists will allow of no such distinction So the Title and Office of a King is one thing the Person another and howsoever the former comes not into question yet the latter may But many by mixing and confounding things together which should be severed and distinguished apprehend not how the Person of the King and not the Title and Office of a King can be questioned censured and punished Hugo Grotius putting down seven cases in which the people may have most real action against the
King to accuse and punish him Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. The second is He may saith he be punished as a private man 4. Objec That place in Psal 105.14.15 is usually objected Touch not mine anointed This by Royallists is applied to Kings as a prohibition that no man touch them so as to hurt their Persons Answ 1. The words in the Prophet do not at all concern Kings but were spoken directly and immediatly of the Patriarks their wives families walking as strangers from Nation to Nation the which is evident by vers 6. by the whole serious of the Psalm which is historical some places of Genesis to which the words relate Gen. 12. 10. to 20. ch 20. 26. 1. to 29. and the general confession of all Expositors on the place The Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston July 2. Anno 1644. the Crown and the Prelates mitre painted with these words Nolite tangere Christos meos so that it seems the antichristian mitre claims here a share with the crown But 2. Admit this Scripture should be so meant which is not so yet nothing can be hence rightly gathered that Kings should be exempted from Arrests Imprisonments or Sentence of death it self For 1. If we take it spiritually for the internal oyl of the Spirit as this annointing is common to subjects as wel as Kings so it must follow necessarily that in their persons they are no more exempted from arraignment and capital censures than other men 2. Admit it be meant of an actual external Anointing yet that in it self affords Kings no greater priviledge than the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from the just corporal sentence of all kinds and this is manifest in Sihon Og Adonibezek Eglon Agag Joram Ahaziah Jehoaz and others who by Princes and subjects of another nation were apprehended and slain and justly as all grant without exception Besides Kings who are subordinate homagers and subjects to other Kings and Emperours though annointed may for treasons and rebellions against them be lawfully judged to death and executed as appears by sundry presidents in our own and forraign Histories Yea the Roman Greek and Germane Emperors have been Imprisoned Deposed and some of them judicially judged to death by their own Senates Parliaments and States for their oppression and tyranny So the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Brittain Hungarie Poland Denmark Bohemia India c. that justly notwithstanding any pretence of being anointed Soveraigns And it is by Grotius confessed Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 That the People may punish the King to death for matters capital if so it be agreed on betwixt king and the people as in Lacedemonia 3. If the Scope and Sence of this Text be duly weighed it is so far from affording Kings any corporal immunities or exemption from punishment as it cleerly speaks the contrary For the words are not spoken of Kings but by God Himself spoken unto Kings that they should not touch his Spiritual anointed Saints men consecrated unto him by the oyl of the Spirit But you wil say What if they touch Gods anointed even spoil and murder them for his sake I answer The Law Gen. 9.6 excepteth none the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Who so sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed The Supream Court of Justice is here highly concerned Thus saith the Lord Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people 1 King 20.42 5. obiect Davids often sparing of Saul though in his hand is often object And Dr. Gauden in his late Letter to his Excellency saies You cannot be ignorant of Davids both consciencious and generous respect to Sauls safety and life whom he leaves to Gods justice by no usurpation of power successes or opportunities of revenge page 7. Ans 1. There is nothing from Davids carriage towards Saul in this particular but to bring it into a short account is thus Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the person of the King specially in their cold blood when he doth not actually assault them nor have a lawful power judiciously to proceed against him 2. But more particularly I answer The difference was but private and personal between Saul David David being Sauls private subject servant and son-in-law not publick between Saul and his Parliament or Kingdom Now many things are unlawful in private quarrels which are just and honourable in publick differences Saul intended no Arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all the godly under the pretence of hereticks and sectaries neither to destroy laws liberties and Parliaments nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and People who made him King only David's head would have made Saul lay down his arms 3. Howsoever some reasons may be given wherefore David spared Saul as 1. Being his father-in-law and lord too and so it would have been thought somewhat an unnaturall act in him and savoured too much of private revenge and ambition aspiring to the Crown before due time 2. By his lenity to convince Saul and reclaim him from his bloody pursuit and cleer his innocency to the world And lastly Manifest his dependance upon God and his special promise that he should enjoy the crown after Saul by divine appointment neverthelesse if these and other Scriptures be well perused Saul and David soldiers if not David himself conceived that David might with safe conscience have punished him as well as pittied him 1 Sam. 24.10.11 12.17.18 26.23.24 Expedient I confesse it was for the considerations mentioned to spare him but whether the thing in soro Dei and in it self altogether unlawful had he slain him specially after he had killed the Priests and destroyed both men and women children and sucklings in Nob 1 Sam. 22.18.19 I leave to the judicious Reader to think of 6. Objec That place 1 Sam 8.9 and ver 11. is much alleadged to prove both the absolute power of a King and the unlawfulnesse of resistance a Grot. de Jur. bel pac lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. Hugo Grotius b Barcl cont mon l. 2. p. 64. Barclay c Arnis de fur 6. Mai. c. 1. n. 3. p. 157 158. Arnisaeus d Dr. Fern 3. p. Sect. 2. p. 10. Dr. Fern and others argue thus that by this place The People oppressed with the injuries of a tyrannous King have nothing left them but prayers and tears to God and will have us distinguish inter officium Regis potestatem between the Kings office and the Kings power and it cannot be ver 9.11 the custome and manner of the King but must be the
us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us For there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of Gods Law why we can say more the subjects and sons sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. The King killing his Father Jesse should sin only against God but not break the fift commandment nor sin against his Father 2. As all Emperors Kings and Princes are subject to the Lawes of God of nature and Nations so are they bound in conscience to give satisfaction and recompence to their subjects against whom they sin in this nature and David himself determines so much in his own cause And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himself 1 Sam. 12.7 thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath don this shall surely die 3. For the reason of Davids speech in saying against thee thee only have I sinned Expositors are diversly minded some say he meaneth none durst judge or punish him but God onely Lorinus the Jesuit observeth eleven interpretations of Ancient writers all to this sence It is true Beda Euthymius Ambrose Chrysostome Basil Theodoret do acknowledge from the place de facto there was none above David to judge him so Augustine Basil Gregory Arnobius Dydimus Hieronim But the simple meaning is Against thee only 1. As my eye witnesse and immediate beholder for he conceal'd his sin from men but could not from God 2 Sam. 12.12 2. Because as the cause stood God only could remit the punishment of his sin 3. By only he means comparatively as if he should say principally and especially against thee Isa 43 5 Psal 41.3 and the word a 1 King 15.7 Josh 1.7.18 1 Sam. 18.17 only is often so taken 4. The Sanedrim did not punish David Ergo it was not lawful for them nor is it lawfull for a State to punish a King for any act of injustice is logick which we may resist 5. Had the adultery and murder been publickly known and complained of to the Great Councel of the Kingdom I do affirm and will stand to it that they might judicially have proceeded against him for it And because some wil be ready to brand this under the scornful terme of a new light or think I am singular herein I shall here set down the judgment of a judicious and learned professor of Divinity Mr. Sam. Rutherfurd a Scotchman Preem of Elect of King qu 26 p 241 The Prelate saith he draweth me to speak of the case of the Kings unjust murder confessed Psal 51. To which I answer He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his adultery and murder but he giveth no reason for this nor any word of God and truly though I will not presume to go before others in this Gods law Gen. 9.6 compared with Numb 35.30,31 seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that Gods law Deut 1,17 2 Chr. 19 6,7 or his deputy the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaks to under-Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the honor of the person of the mighty or of the PRINCE for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it follows not that if we speak of the demerit of blood that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the STATE BE ABOVE THE KING as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King is free from all coaction of law because it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of conscience FOR MY PART I SEE NO EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES OF IT if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur Thus that Reverend Author Lastly This sin against Vrijah was personal and a private injury into which David fell by occasion and out of humane frailty it was the first and only sin that he committed in this kind that ever we reade of he made no trade of it he repented for it and never relapsed after into it Whereas Charles Steuart in a hostile and publick way hath murdered many thousands of his best subjects by giving Warrants and Commissions under his own hand to Atheists and Papists personally appeared in many battles to destroy the people caused sundry villages towns and cities to be ruinated by fire plunder rapine authorised villanous Pirates of other nations not to mention his own Son nor Rupert that monster of mankind to rob and kill his own subjects at sea gave Ormond commission and the bloody Irish to kill and massacre not so few as two hundred thousand men women and children of the Protestant religion in Ireland not to speak of fifteen hundred widowes which he made in one morning as Mr. Henderson told him nor the losse of Rochel in France by his lending ships to the French King and this was his trade and constant practice many yeers together and doubtlesse would have continued so to this day had not the Lord of Hosts by a powerfull hand using our Army as instrumental means supprest him and for all this his heart never smote him as it could be perceived but remain'd impenitent and incorrigeble in his sins 9. obiect It is likewise objected Jer. 29,7 That the children of Israel were commanded by God himself to pour out supplications prayers for the peace and prosperous estate of Nebuchadnezer a most cruel tyrant and that it was not lawfull for the Jewes to withdraw themselves from the subjection which they did owe unto his Empire Neither would the Lord authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched out arm Nor did the Lord deliver his People by the wisdom of Moses or strength of the People or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and Power Hence conclude that subjects may not punish their Kings for any misdemeanour Answ 1. The Jews were not only subjects and of a private condition but likewise most of them servants and bond-men under the power and Empire of the Caldeans and therefore for private men to rise up against the Magistrates or to resist them with force of arms had been unlawfull 2. And let it be observed that the Jews came by the immediate appointment of the Lord under the power of the Caldeans of which thing they were often preadmonished and fore-told by the Prophets so that it was not only
unlawfull for Zedekiah and the rest of the Jews in the time of their captivity to resist the tyranny of the Caldeans but likewise before the captivity they could not with a good conscience have resisted or maintain'd the city against them when they had besieged it forasmuch as the Lord commanded them by Jeremy that they should deliver up the city into the hands of the Caldeans and without resistance yeeld themselves to be their servants Chap. 21.2,3,4 27,1,12,13,14 ch 36 ch 37 3. Touching Pharaoh 1. He had not his crown from Israel 2. Pharaoh had not sworn to defend Israel nor became their King upon condition and oath to maintain their Laws Liberties and Rights 3. Israel had their land in Egypt by the meer gift of the King 4. The Israelites were not his native subjects but strangers and sojourners who by the Laws of the King and Princes by the means of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and liberty to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2,23,24 The Kings of England as Kings have stood to England in a four-fold contrary relation they have had their crown by the voluntary and free choise of the People and no otherwise but conditionally that is covenanting and taking their oath to do so and so for the publick good The English are natives not beholding to their Kings for their possessions nor ever held the same as gratis from them The Supream and Soveraign Power of the Kingdom is in their hand the which Israel in Egypt never had nor could lawfully challenge 10. obje Dr. Gouden speaking of putting the King to death saith Never did Christ or his Apostles by practice or precept give the lest intimation of the will of his Father as agreeing to what you declare to be your purpose Christ saith Maxwel Sac. San. Mai. c 5. n. 6. in the cradle taught by practice to flee from Herod and all Christs actions are full of mysteries and our instructions He might have had Legions of Angels to defend him but would rather work a miracle in curing of Malchu's ear as use the sword against Caesar He suffered under Pontius Pilate to commend patient suffering of ill condemn al resistance of superiors would have servants suffer buffets not only for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly of these masters that are evill and that from his own example 1 Pet. 2.18.21.23 much more are we patiently to suffer of Kings without resistance The monuments of Babels ruin shew farre off to be high and great things but being neer they are very low and little too whatsoever is here if we come up close to it 't is impertinences non-consequences and nothing else And first in general we answer 1. Christ saying His Kingdom is not of the world and refusing to take the Magistracy upon him signifyed thereby that for civil politie he left it to the people to practice according to the humane Law and reason and as it might best serve for every nations safety peace and welfare 2. When the Dr. writes next I would have him set down where Christ and his Apostles by precept or practice taught that any man for murder treason rebellion c. might lawfully be put to death by the higher powers if he find this thing no where directly or by consequence in the New Testament then under favor of his Doctorship it is simply spoken But if he can find such a precept or practice thus far I do ingage and challenge any man to oppose that I will as clearly prove from the same place that the Commons of England may lawfully put their King to death for the like crimes 3. If Christ came not to destroy the Law as the Law of nature Nations then it is not contrary to any precept or practice of his for the Parliament of England to judge to death the King for treason and high misdemeanors against the law of nature and Nations But the first is true therefore the latter 2. For a more particular answer 1. Christ flying into Egypt what mystery soever it had sure I am it contained no prohibition against the lawfull execution of justice and judgment upon any man 2. That Christ might have defended himself with more then twelve legions of Angels but would not it was not because to cut off tyrants is unlawfull 〈…〉 no shadow for that in the Text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him 3. That Christ blamed Peter for speaking of drawing his sword Rivetus sheweth the reasons Rivet in dec in mand 6. pag 234. 1. Because it had a kind of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an Army as came to take Christ 2. He waited not on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter Mat. 16,21,22,24 4. To the place in Peter I answer 1. Patient bearing of wrong and punishing wrong doers are compatible in one and the same person One act of grace is not contrary to another Not to respect persons in judgment is as commendable a vertue as patient suffering for a good cause 2. The scope of the place is not to forbid all violent resisting but only forbiddeth revenging resisting as not to repair one wrong with another from the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again and therfore the Argument is a fallacie Ab eo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a master attempt to kill an innocent servant and invade him with a weapon of death in that case the servant is free from guiltiness if there being no other way to save his life he slay the master than be kild himself because I am neerer by the law of nature and dearer to my self and mine own life then to my brother 3. No Prince hath a mastery or dominion over his subjects but only a free paternal and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people The masters in the Apostles time had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods Ro. 13.4 11. obje But the special Objection of Royallists is Rom. 13.1,2 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Hence therefore they conclude Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 Barc con mon. l. 3. c 9 Maxwel Sâ—c San. Mai. c. 2 p. 29. 1. That the King is the supreamest or highest power here intended There is no Judge above a King on earth 2. Howsoever in those dayes there was a standing and continual Senate which not long before had the Supream power in the Roman State yet now the Emperour was Supream and therefore no power of resistance left to the people 3. The prohibition
it hath been seen by often and wofull experience when the States of a kingdom have only stirr'd their Princes by opposing and resisting their tyranny and misgovernment and not cut them off they have brought upon themselves and the whol Realm the more mischief and misery afterward 3. Former examples are no binding rules to us otherwise then we see men have acted according to reason religion Law for wherein soever they differed from these things therein ought we to differ from them 4. If kings formerly have not judicially been put to death for murder treason and other capital crimes it is the more needfull and usefull that such a thing should now be don that all other Nations far and neer may hence know and learn what their duty is and what they may lawfully do in point of Law and conscience and not stand stil as if they were beasts in a base and sencelesse slavery any longer But Fiftly To speak more directly to the objection There is no new thing under the sun We have many examples of Emperours Kings which have judicially been condemned put to death by the Soveraign power of the people Matth. Par. pag. 273 274 275. Not to speak of Nero mentioned before nor of our King John who was condemned to death by a Parliament in France for slaying his Nephew Arthur treacherously with his own hands and likewise to lose the Crown of England It is said of Amaziah king of Iudah 2 King 14.19 That they made a conspiracie against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent after him to Lachish and slew him there Not privately but openly as acted by publick authority for his great impiety and having broken his Oath and Covenant whereupon we reade not of any complaint inquisition proceeding or punishment inflicted on those that slew him after his death either by the people or his children as there was upon those that slew king Amon but being slain They to wit the persons who had put him to death brought him on horses and he was buried in Jerusalem and all the people of Judah made Ahaziah King Which plainly shews that what was formerly done by the greater part of the State at Jerusalem was afterward confirmed by Common-consent and executed by command of those which might lawfully do it In like manner Andronieus was apprehended deposed put to death by the people for his tyranny and oppression Nic. Chr An nales fol. 52. Grimst Emp. hlst pag. 160. Reg. Sco Buchan lib. 4. pa. 111. So Iulianus not only deprived of the Empire but authoritatively commanded to be slain in his pallace Heliogabulus that monster of mankind was by the Praetorian Soldiers put to death with the Senate and peoples approbation Dardan King of Scotland by the unanimous consent of the Nobles and people had his head cut off which they carried about for a laughing-stock and threw his corps into a jakes after he had reigned 4. years Lucktock the 22 King of Scotland for his vitious and base life was convented before an assembly of the chief men and slain with the instruments of his wickedness ib. p. 113. Eugenius the 8. another of their Kings was for his filthy lusts covetousness and cruelty slain in the assembly of his Lords by their general consent and his companions in villany and wickednesse hanged Et ipsi gratum populo speculatum praebuere pag. 165. which was a greateful spectacle to the people So Agis and Pausanias two Lacedemonian Princes put to death by the people Mun. cos l. 5. c. 37. p. 1248. So the Thracian Kings for their offences by publick consent were punished with death The usual practice of the Saboeans was to stone their Kings if they highly transgressed and went beyond their bounds If need were it might be shewed out of Histories and approved Authors that the Athenians Ionians Melesians Marchomanni Quadi Persians Sicilians Corinthians Parthians Meroes Gardii Medes Paphii Cathians Ethiopians Sidonians Germanes Swedes Danes and antiently even all other Nations not only prescribed laws and limâ—… to their Kings but cald them usually to an account for their misgovernment and oft times put them to death when they saw cause Alex. ab â—… 4. â—… fol. â—… â—uel Gibel pli l. 4. Alex. l. 6. c. 4. Plut. in Arat. Val. 6 The putting to death of Tyrants in former times hath been held so lawful and honorable as large rewards have been propounded to the undertakers and authors thereof and to the living they have given the goods of the Tyrant as to the deliverer of their Country and honored the dead with Epitaphs and Statutes of brasse as in Athens Harmodius and Aristogiton together with Brutus and Cassius Max. l. 2. c. ult L. 3. L. omâ— ne delictuÌ„ Sect. ut F. de re mil. in Greece Aratus the Sycienian and thus by publick Decree of their States because they had freed their several countries from the tyranny of Pasistratus Coesar Nicoebis yea those monuments of Tyrant-killers by antiquity were so honored and highly esteemed of as they placed them in their Temples on sacred banqueting beds And when Xerxes having vanquished the Athenians had carried away with him the Statutes of Harmodius and Aristogiton into his own country Seleucus one of the successors of Alexander the great King of Syria caused them with all diligence to be carried back again and to be set up in their own places In Norway antiently they had this custom That whosoever slew a Tyrant King was thereby made a King Gul. Neu brig l. 3. cap. 6. And what the Poet wrote was the opinion then and common saying of the people Victima haud ulla amplior Potest magisve opima mactari Iovi Quam Rex iniquus To God no better offering can men bring Nor fatter than a wicked Tyrant King For conclusion This only I shall add to say There is not an example any where of the like practice If it be meant not so judicially and according to the strict rule and form of law I confesse there may be much truth in it For commonly heretofore amongst all Nations Iewes Turks Papists Heathens c. People observed not the manner as matter they thought Tyrants so worthy of death as they did not much mind how and in what way to cut them off so they were destroyed hence it came to passe that few tyrannous princes in old time ever died a natural death but either by their subjects or their means were slain in warre or by some private hand made out of the way which gave Iuvenal occasion to say Ad generum Cereris sine caede sanguine pauci Descendunt Reges sicca morte Tyranni Few Tyrants unto Plutoes Court do go But that are thither sent by bloody blow And therefore this late proceeding against the King seeing it was so legal it shall live and remain upon record to the perpetual honor of our English State who took no dark or doubtful way no indirect â—…by-course but went in the open and plain path of Justice Reason â—…w and Religion and in this regard they need not fear the reproaches and falshood of malitious tongues and pens for as God doth approve their work and owns it so he will defend them his and their Cause in spight of all treacherous and wicked Designs either of Men or Devils The end of the First Part.